explaining that it was deciding the case “on the basis of the more permissive stream of commerce theory” rather than “the more stringent minimum contacts test set forth in Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi ”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that it was deciding the case “on the basis of the more permissive stream of commerce theory” rather than “the more stringent minimum contacts test set forth in Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi ”
- finding personal jurisdiction in a products liability suit when the defendant sold fireworks to a middleman “with the knowledge that its fireworks would reach Illinois consumers in the stream of commerce”
- noting that “[t]he first inquiry is wholly unnecessary in the case of many modern state statutes [including Illinois’ long-arm statute] which include catch-all provisions that grant to state courts jurisdiction over all matters in which the state may constitutionally assert jurisdiction”
- explaining that the amendment of the Illinois long-arm jurisdictional statute collapsed the statutory part of the personal jurisdiction analysis into one, constitutional inquiry
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*949 RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Judge Cummings’ thoughtful opinion for the court certainly reaches the correct result and sets forth, in scholarly fashion, the unfortunate ambiguity created by Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). I write separately because I believe that the court’s use of this ambiguity as the matrix of its analysis unnecessarily complicates the key point upon which our decision must rest. With respect to the transaction that underlies this cause of action, the defendant clearly had sufficient contacts, from both a quantitative and qualitative point of view, to make it fundamentally fair to require it to answer for its conduct in Illinois.
It is important to note that, under the so-called “stream of commerce” theory approach or under “the more stringent minimum contacts test,” ante at 947, of the Asahi plurality, the nature of the defendant’s relationship with the forum is of prime importance. While the so-called “stream of commerce” approach permits this factor to be considered “in light of other relevant factors,” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 564 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the burden on the defendant, a burden assessed by weighing its contacts with the forum, is always “a primary concern.” Id.
Here, the defendant’s contacts with Illinois are clearly sufficient. Austin sold fireworks to Bartolotta with the knowledge that its fireworks would reach Illinois for particular displays and thus purposefully directed its business activity with respect to these fireworks toward Illinois. On this crucial factor, our holding appropriately rests.
The court also notes, ante at n. 6, that the defendant’s other activity in Illinois is relevant for the limited purpose of establishing that it purposefully directed its activity toward Illinois. However, only activity contemporaneous or antecedent to the incident at issue ought to be considered in this regard.
On this basis, I join the judgment of the court.